Save GrafTech Shareholder Presentation (April 16, 2014)

As updated on April 16, 2014

Redefining the Board

SaveGrafTech.com

1

Legal Disclaimer

On February 25, 2014, Nathan Milikowsky, Daniel Milikowsky, NM GTI Investments LLC, The Daniel Milikowsky Family Holdings, LLC, The Daniel and Sharon Milikowsky Family Foundation, Inc., and The Rebecca and Nathan Milikowsky Family Foundation (“Save GrafTech”), filed a preliminary proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in connection with the 2014 annual meeting of the stockholders of GrafTech International Ltd. (the “Company”), which preliminary proxy was updated on April 1, 2014. The preliminary proxy statement is available at no charge on the SEC’s web site at www.sec.gov and contains information related to the participants and a description of the participant’s direct or indirect interests, by security holdings. Save GrafTech intends to file a definitive proxy statement and accompanying proxy card to be used to solicit proxies from the stockholders of the Company. All stockholders of the Company are advised to read the definitive proxy statement and other documents related to the solicitation of proxies by Save GrafTech when they become available because they contain important information, including additional information related to the participants and a description of their direct or indirect interests. When completed, the definitive proxy statement and form of proxy will be furnished to some or all of the stockholders of the Company and will, along with other relevant documents, be available at no charge on the SEC’s web site at www.sec.gov. In addition, Save GrafTech will provide copies of the definitive proxy statement and accompanying proxy card (when available) without charge upon request. Save GrafTech and their affiliates do not assume responsibility for investment decisions. This presentation does not recommend the purchase or sale of any security. Under no circumstances is this presentation to be used or considered as an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security. This document includes certain forward-looking statements, estimates and projects prepared with respect to, among other things, general economic and market conditions, changes in management, changes in the composition of the Company’s board, actions of the Company and its subsidiaries or competitors and the ability to implement business strategies and plans and pursue business opportunities. Such forward-looking statements, estimates and projections reflect various assumptions concerning anticipated results that are inherently subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies and have been included solely for illustrative purposes, including those risks and uncertainties detailed in the continues disclosure and other filings of the Company, copies of which are available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. No representations, express or implied, are made as to the accuracy of completeness of such forward-looking statements, estimate or projects or with respect to any other materials herein. Save GrafTech reserves the right to change any of its opinions expressed herein at any time as it deems appropriate. Save GrafTech and their affiliates may buy, sell, cover or otherwise change the form of their investment in the Company for any reason at any time, without notice, and there can be no assurances that they will take any of the actions described in this document. Save GrafTech disclaims any duty to provide any updates or changes to the analyses contained in this document, except as may be required by law. Save GrafTech disclaims any obligation to update the information contained herein. Save GrafTech has not sought or obtained consent from any third party to use any statements or information indicated in this presentation as having been obtained or derived from statements made or published by third parties. Any such statements or information should not be viewed as indicating the support of such third party for the views expressed herein. Save GrafTech may have relied upon certain quantitative and qualitative assumptions when preparing the analysis which may not be articulated as part of the analysis. The realization of the assumptions on which the analysis was based are subject to significant uncertainties, variabilities, and contingencies and may change materially in response to small changes in the elements that comprise the assumptions, including the interaction of such elements. Furthermore, the assumptions on which the analysis was based may be necessarily arbitrary, may be made as of the date of the analysis, do not necessarily reflect historical experience with respect to securities similar to those that may be contained in the analysis, and do not constitute a precise prediction as to future events. Because of the uncertainties and subjective judgments inherent in selecting the assumptions on which the analysis was based and because future events and circumstances cannot be predicted, the actual results realized may differ materially from those projected in the analysis. The information that is contained in the analysis should not be construed as financial, legal, investment, tax, or other advice. You ultimately must rely upon your own examination and that of your professional advisors, including legal counsel and accountants as to the legal, economic, tax, regulatory, or accounting treatment, suitability, and other aspects of the analysis.

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary 3 – 18

II. GrafTech’s Chronic Underperformance 19 – 29

III. Root Causes of GrafTech’s Underperformance 30 – 42

IV. Save GrafTech’s Recommendations 43 – 52

V. Save GrafTech’s Nominees 53 – 58

VI. Addressing GrafTech’s Misinformation Campaign 59 – 64

VII. Appendix 65 – 74

2

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary: Overview of Save GrafTech1

4

Save GrafTech is committed to implementing strategies and organizational changes to unlock and protect value for all shareholders

Save GrafTech is an investor group led by Nathan Milikowsky, one of GrafTech International Ltd.’s (“GrafTech”, “GTI” or the “Company”) largest investors

Nathan Milikowsky and his family own over 15 million, or 11.2%, of GrafTech’s outstanding shares

Save GrafTech holds $127 million of GrafTech debt

Mr. Milikowsky and his family obtained substantially all of their Company shares on November 30, 2010, when GrafTech acquired Seadrift Coke L.P. (“Seadrift”) and C/G Electrodes LLC (“C/G Electrodes”), and they have not sold any GrafTech shares since that time

Save GrafTech believes that the Company has severely underperformed its peers and requires a new direction

To that end, Save GrafTech has nominated three individuals to the Board of Directors of GrafTech (“the Board”) with the intention of replacing three existing Board members

Although Save GrafTech supports new CEO Joel Hawthorne, Save GrafTech believes that only new oversight can ensure implementation of the dramatic strategic changes needed for GrafTech to compete in the graphite electrode market

1 Source: SEC filings

Executive Summary: Overview of Save GrafTech – Timeline of Key Events1

5

GrafTech announced the

acquisition of C/G Electrodes and

Seadrift

The owners of C/G Electrodes and

Seadrift received cash, $200 million in notes, 24 million

shares, and the right to one seat on

the Board

2010

Director Nathan Milikowsky

expressed his strategic and operational concerns to

management and to other

members of the Board, and

recommended the replacement

of Chairman/CEO

Craig Shular

2012

In early 2013 Mr. Milikowsky was informed that he would

not be re-nominated

2013

Save GrafTech requested the

Company’s Form of Director

Nomination

1/15/2014

Craig Shular promptly retired

as CEO, effective

immediately

1/17/2014

SAVE GRAFTech

1 Source: SEC filings; GrafTech Press Release (April 29, 2010)

Executive Summary: Overview of GrafTech

GrafTech’s history goes back to 1886 when The National Carbon Company, GrafTech’s predecessor, was founded as an electrode producer for street lamps

In 1917, the Company merged with Union Carbide and operated as the Carbon Products Division of Union Carbide

During the first four decades of the 20th century, the Company’s core business shifted towards producing electrodes for electric arc furnaces

UCAR was spun out of Union Carbide in 1989 and in 2002, the Company was rebranded as GrafTech

In November 2010, GrafTech acquired C/G Electrodes and needle coke producer, Seadrift, for $853 million, creating the only vertically integrated graphite electrode producer in the world1

Today, GrafTech is the world’s largest producer of graphite electrodes2

The Company now operates in two segments: Industrial Materials and Engineered Solutions (“ES”)

GrafTech has electrode production facilities in the United States, France, Spain, Mexico, Brazil, and South Africa3

Today, GrafTech’s revenues are spread across Asia (19%), Europe/Middle East/Africa (41%), the Americas – excluding the US (15%), and the United States (25%)4

6

$ in millions, except per share As of March 7, 2014

Total Revenue $1,248

EBITDA 141

EBIT 18

Net Income (27)

Total Enterprise Value $1,902

Cash & Short Term Investments 12

Total Debt 552

Market Capitalization 1,362

Shares Outstanding (mm) 136.1

Current Price Per Share $10.05

Financials4

Save GrafTech is keenly aware of the Company’s proud history and pledges to restore GrafTech to its former leadership for the long term benefit of its stakeholders

1 Note: Mr. Milikowsky owned majority stakes in both C/G Electrodes, and Seadrift at the time of the acquisition by GrafTech 2 Source: GrafTech Investor Presentation (August 2013) 3 Note: The Company announced its intention to close the facilities in Brazil and South Africa (Form 8-K filed on October 31, 2013) 4 Source: Capital IQ, SEC filings

Executive Summary: Overview of GrafTech’s Business Segments

7

2013 Revenue by Segment1

Industrial Materials 78%

Engineered Solutions

22%

1 Source: SEC filings, Capital IQ

Despite claims from GrafTech’s management

and Board that the Company is a “graphite

material science company,1” GrafTech is

primarily a graphite electrode producer

Executive Summary: Global EAF Production Rises, GrafTech’s Shipments Fall

GrafTech’s shipments are declining despite a growing EAF steel market 1 Source: World Steel Association 2 Sources: 2003 – 2007 SEC filings, 2008 JP Morgan estimate, 2009 – 2012 KeyBanc estimates 8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Graphite Electrode Shipm

ents (metric tons in thousands)

Glo

bal E

AF S

teel

Pro

duct

ion

(met

ric to

ns in

mill

ions

)

Global EAF Production

Global EAF Production, Excluding China

GrafTech Graphite Electrode Shipments

EAF Steel Production1 and GTI Shipments2

CAGR: 3.7%

CAGR: 3.2%

CAGR: -2.2%

Executive Summary: Falling GrafTech TSR Despite Strong EAF Steel Market

9

+100.5% - S&P 500

+196.6% - Selected Peer Group

GrafTech has underperformed its peer group by over 200% in the last 10 years

+343.2% - Selected Minimill Index

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

400%

450%

500%

550%

600%

Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14

-15.1%

Source: Bloomberg Note: TSR as of January 7, 2014 (the day prior to Save GrafTech’s 13D/A filing) when GTI closed at $11.32 per share Note: Selected Minimill Index is an average TSR, weighted by market cap, of Commercial Metals Company, Gerdau, Nucor Corporation, and Steel Dynamics Inc. Note: Selected Peer Group is an average TSR, weighted by market cap, of SGL Group, Tokai Carbon, HEG Limited, and Graphite India

Executive Summary: GrafTech’s Chronic Underperformance

10 1 Source: Bloomberg; Note: TSR as of January 7, 2014 (the day prior to Save GrafTech’s 13D/A filing) 2 Note: Selected Minimill Index consists of Commercial Metals Company, Gerdau, Nucor Corporation, and Steel Dynamics Inc.; weighted by market cap

GrafTech’s performance relative to peers has been abysmal

Selected Minimill Index2

10-Year TSR -237.0% -54.5% -393.6% -168.8% -358.4%

5-Year TSR -12.8% +36.7% -176.8% -91.1% -43.4%

3-Year TSR -54.2% -14.0% -30.2% -34.5% -59.3%

GrafTech’s TSR Relative to its Peers and Primary Customers1

Executive Summary: Root Causes of Underperformance

Strategy Operations Leadership

We believe the primary causes of GrafTech’s chronic underperformance fall into three core areas:

11

We believe that the heart of GrafTech’s dreadful performance has been poor leadership, enabled by a consistent lack of Board oversight, causing a precipitous decline in sales,

inefficient operations, and damaged customer relationships

Executive Summary: Root Causes of GrafTech’s Underperformance

Strategy: Improper Commercial Strategy We believe GrafTech’s Board and senior management have failed to grasp the essential commodity nature of the

high-quality graphite electrode market and have gone to market with a disastrous price leadership strategy Operations: Bloated and Inefficient Corporate Overhead We believe GrafTech maintains a bloated and inefficient overhead

Excessive Inventory as Market Share Decreases GrafTech’s inventory has grown dramatically as the Company lost market share and revenues declined

Failure to Consistently Run Seadrift at Capacity We believe GrafTech has failed to fully capitalize on the unique competitive advantage of owning the second largest

needle coke producer in the world Leadership: Broken Company Culture We believe GrafTech's employees are marginalized, demoralized, and improperly incentivized

Inefficient Management Structure We believe excessive layers of management and a sluggish hierarchical structure have raised costs, curbed initiative,

and distanced senior management from core business operations and customers Failed Oversight by a Flawed Board Despite abysmal stock performance, the Board failed to take timely steps needed to alter GrafTech’s downward

trajectory

We believe the numerous failures of GrafTech’s Management and Board have hurt shareholder value and warrant dramatic change

12

Executive Summary: GrafTech’s Recent Changes are Reactive and Inadequate1

“Rationalization Plan” On October 31, 2013 GrafTech announced a “Rationalization Plan”, whereby the Company will close electrode plants in

Brazil and South Africa resulting in further reduction of GrafTech's electrode capacity by 60,000 metric tons, or about 25%

We believe the Company’s announced plan was a move to preempt Save GrafTech’s potential public involvement and was reacting to pressure from a competitor’s restructuring, and that the Board lacks the credibility to implement meaningful change

Craig Shular’s Resignation On January 17, 2014, two days after Save GrafTech requested the Company’s form of nomination for the 2014 annual

meeting, Chairman & CEO Craig Shular “retired” from his position as CEO Without any comprehensive search process of which we are aware, Joel Hawthorne was named as Mr. Shular’s

successor, taking the position of CEO and President Craig Shular remains as Executive Chairman of the Board We believe that the recent CEO change by GrafTech was reactive and, without pressure from Save GrafTech, Mr. Shular

would still be CEO, since the current Board tolerated the Company’s chronic underperformance throughout Mr. Shular’s 11-year tenure

13

We believe that without ongoing accountability and strategic support from a newly constituted board, GrafTech will not be able to implement the strategic and cultural changes needed to

create sustainable value for shareholders

1 Source: SEC filings, 2013 – 2014 Analyst Reports

Executive Summary: Save GrafTech Recommendations

Redefine Commercial Strategy Implement cost and efficiency leadership to reverse GrafTech’s market share decline

Reduce Excess Inventory by More Than $190 Million

Reduce SG&A by at Least 25%

Ensure Seadrift is Consistently Run at Capacity

Expand Seadrift Beyond Current Capacity

Streamline Organizational Structure

Evaluate All Opportunities Available to Engineered Solutions

Improve Corporate Governance Ensure that the Company’s shareholders are able to hold the Board accountable

14

Each of Save GrafTech’s recommendations are intended to create sustainable, long-term shareholder value

Executive Summary: Overview of Save GrafTech’s Platform

15

We believe, if Save GrafTech‘s initiatives are fully and successfully undertaken, GrafTech stock will increase by as much as $7.00 per share from these initiatives alone

Save GrafTech’s Plan

Redefine Commercial

Strategy

Reduce Inventory &

SG&A

Expand Seadrift Plant

Explore Opportunities Available to Engineered Solutions

Streamline Organizational

Structure

Improve Corporate

Governance

Maximize Shareholder

Value

Pro Forma Increase in Price Per Share1

Potential Market Share Improvement $ 60 million

Reduce SG&A $ 28 million

Expand Capacity at Seadrift $ 24 million

Estimated Increase in EBITDA $112 million

Estimated EV/EBITDA Multiple 8.0x

Estimated Increase in Equity Value $896 million

Shares Outstanding 136 million

Potential Increase in Price Per Share $6.50/share

Potential Share Price Increase from Reduced Inventory $0.50/share2

1 Save GrafTech analysis 2 Note: See page 45 for detailed discussion

Executive Summary: Save GrafTech has a Better Strategy

We believe Save GrafTech’s strategy will lead to a higher price, higher volume outcome because we plan to adopt a commercial strategy that addresses the intensely competitive, commodity nature of the global

graphite electrode industry

16

Begin bidding season with aggressive price announcement 1

Historic GrafTech Outcome High account churn Lower selling prices Lower volume Disrupted customer relationships

Alienate current customers and sacrifice early bids

2

Scramble to reverse account losses by abandoning aggressive pricing

3

Desperately pursue opportunistic buyers to save volume 4

Meet with core relationships and secure mutually agreeable renewals 1

Seek opportunities to expand core relationships and win new/expanded capacity

2

Round out order book with opportunistic buyers at attractive prices 3

Seek and implement strategies to deepen customer relationships 4

Save GrafTech’s Goals Low account churn Higher selling prices Higher volume Strengthened customer relationships

Inappropriate GrafTech Strategy Save GrafTech Strategy

Executive Summary: Save GrafTech Nominees

Karen Finerman - Redefining Corporate Communication

David Jardini - Instilling Operational Excellence

Nathan Milikowsky - Reestablishing Shareholder Accountability

17

“We are incredibly excited by the opportunity to unlock value at GrafTech. We believe the Company has a tremendous opportunity to restore its position as the leader in the graphite electrode industry.”

- David Jardini, Save GrafTech Nominee

II. GRAFTECH’S CHRONIC UNDERPERFORMANCE

Despite growing demand for its core product – graphite electrodes – GrafTech has underperformed

The Call to “Save GrafTech” is Urgent

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Graphite Electrode Shipm

ents (metric tons in thousands)

Glo

bal E

AF S

teel

Pro

duct

ion

(met

ric to

ns in

mill

ions

)

Global EAF Production

Global EAF Production, Excluding China

GrafTech Graphite Electrode Shipments

EAF Steel Production1 and GTI Shipments2

Demand for graphite electrodes climbs while GrafTech’s volume falls

CAGR: 3.7%

CAGR: 3.2%

CAGR: -2.2%

1 Source: World Steel Association 2 Sources: 2003 – 2007 SEC filings, 2008 JP Morgan estimate, 2009 – 2012 KeyBanc estimates

21

Competitors Expand Capacity While GrafTech Contracts

Would competitors add production capacity if they did not believe in the prospects of the graphite electrode market?

240

449

255

696

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

GrafTech Major Non-China Competitors

Prod

uctio

n Ca

paci

ty (m

etric

tons

in th

ousa

nds)

2002 2012

1952

GrafTech’s Rationalization Plan has reduced its capacity

by 60,000 metric tons by closing the Brazil and South

Africa plants

“The Company has recently expanded Graphite Electrode capacities from 66,000 MT to 80,000 MT, consolidating its position as the largest single-site integrated graphite electrode facility in the world.”

2013 Investor Presentation (emphasis added)

“Expansion of 20,000 MT capacity at Durgapur plant has been completed.

2013 Investor Presentation (emphasis added)

GrafTech vs Non-China Competitors Capacity Growth1

1 Source: GrafTech Investor Presentation (November 2013), Non-China competitors public financial information, press coverage, and Save GrafTech analysis 2 Note: Decreased capacity from shutting the Brazil, and South Africa plants, mentioned in the October 31, 2013 Earnings Call 3 Note: Non-China Competitors consists of Graphite India, HEG Limited, Nippon Carbon, SEC, SGL Carbon, Showa Denko, and Tokai Carbon

“We operate quietly in rural Dorchester County, but our impact has been significant in the US electric furnace steel industry and around the world. Because our business has been successful and we see growing demand for high quality graphite electrodes, we have decided to expand....”

2011 Company Press Release (emphasis added) Showa Denko, a Japanese competitor, has been

EXPANDING its graphite electrode plant in South Carolina by over 50%

3

22

GrafTech’s Chronic Underperformance Relative to Peers

23

GrafTech’s performance relative to peers has been abysmal

Selected Minimill Index2

10-Year TSR -237.0% -54.5% -393.6% -168.8% -358.4%

5-Year TSR -12.8% +36.7% -176.8% -91.1% -43.4%

3-Year TSR -54.2% -14.0% -30.2% -34.5% -59.3%

1 Source: Bloomberg; Note: TSR as of January 7, 2014 (the day prior to Save GrafTech’s 13D/A filing) 2 Note: Selected Minimill Index consists of Commercial Metals Company, Gerdau, Nucor Corporation, and Steel Dynamics Inc.; weighted by market cap

GrafTech’s TSR Relative to its Peers and Primary Customers1

10-Year Total Shareholder Return

+100.5% - S&P 500



-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

400%

450%

500%

550%

600%

Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14

24

-15.1%

GrafTech has underperformed its peer group by over 200% in the last 10 years



-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14

+21.1%

+125.8% - S&P 500



25



-29.2%

-13.0% -8.7%

+11.0%

+54.1% - S&P 500


-75%

-50%

-25%

0%

25%

50%

75%

Jan-11 Apr-11 Jul-11 Oct-11 Jan-12 Apr-12 Jul-12 Oct-12 Jan-13 Apr-13 Jul-13 Oct-13 Jan-14

26

-43.1%

Source: Bloomberg Note: TSR as of January 7, 2014 (the day prior to Save GrafTech’s 13D/A filing) when GTI closed at $11.32 per share Note: Selected Minimill Index is an average TSR, weighted by market cap, of Commercial Metals Company, Gerdau, Nucor Corporation, and Steel Dynamics Inc.

October 31, 2013 GrafTech announced Q3 2013 earnings and a reorganization plan, including intent to shutter two of its graphite electrode production facilities in Brazil and South Africa

GrafTech’s share price rises sharply despite disappointing earnings announcements


27

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Jan-13 Apr-13 Jul-13 Oct-13 Jan-14

GrafTech Selected Peer Group Selected Minimill Index S&P 500

+28.4%

-5.3%

+13.3%

August 8, 2013, SGL Carbon announces its reorganization plan

“[W]e see the $65mm in annual cash cost savings from the capacity closure as difficult.” Goldman Sachs, October 31, 2013

+12.6%


Hypothetical $100,000 investment in GrafTech Versus Peers

28 Source: Capital IQ

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

Total Shareholder Return with $100,000 investment made in January 2004

Earnings Per Share

29

The call to “Save GrafTech” is urgent

Source: Capital IQ Note: LTM Diluted EPS Excluding Extra Items; Q4 2013 EPS does not include the write-off from the Rationalization Plan

$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

$1.40

Q1 '11 Q2 '11 Q3 '11 Q4 '11 Q1 '12 Q2 '12 Q3 '12 Q4 '12 Q1 '13 Q2 '13 Q3 '13 Q4 '13

LTM

Ear

ning

s Pe

r Sha

re

III. ROOT CAUSES OF GRAFTECH’S UNDERPERFORMANCE

“[W]e have been bringing the price up so a part of that is going to be giving up some share for sure as we execute price increases.” - Craig Shular, Chairman of GrafTech Q4 2011 Earnings Call, February 23, 2012 (emphasis added)1

1 Source: Capital IQ Transcripts

Reason #1: Improper Commercial Strategy

Failure to Recognize the Commodity Nature of High-Quality Electrodes

We believe customers understand the commodity nature of high-quality graphite electrodes when negotiating prices and that:

Premium quality is a prerequisite for top-tier graphite electrode suppliers, not a distinguishing characteristic

Steel mills can replace any graphite electrode supplier with relative ease

Steel producers find graphite electrodes from the top-tier players to be largely interchangeable

The annual competitive bidding process should result in similar prices among top-tier suppliers with no supplier having price leverage

EAF steel producers generally award their electrode business on any given year to approximately 2 – 4 suppliers, each of whom "run" on the steelmaking furnace exclusively for an extended period of time

32

We believe that GrafTech’s excessive price increases have hurt the Company’s market share and damaged relationships with customers

Reason #2: Bloated Corporate Overhead

33

Even as GrafTech has grown, it has been unable to meaningfully reduce SG&A

SG&A as a % of Revenue1

1 Source: SEC filings, Capital IQ

We believe that GrafTech has not captured economies of scale from its growth, including acquisitions of C/G Electrodes, Seadrift, Micron Research, and Fiber Materials, because:

SG&A as a percentage of revenue should be expected to decline significantly as total revenue increases

But GrafTech’s SG&A as a percentage of revenue has remained essentially flat

We believe GrafTech has excessive layers of management between the CEO position and the plant floor

We believe GrafTech has not mirrored the culture of its primary customers, who run modern, efficient manufacturing operations by flattening their management structures

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

SG&

A as a % of Revenue

Tota

l Rev

enue

($ in

mill

ions

)

Total RevenueSG&A as a % of Revenue

$340

$375

$402 $408

$444

$555 $555 $546

$513

$538 $541

$519

$490

$300

$350

$400

$450

$500

$550

$600

Q4'10

Q1'11

Q2'11

Q3'11

Q4'11

Q1'12

Q2'12

Q3'12

Q4'12

Q1'13

Q2'13

Q3'13

Q4'13

$ in

mill

ions

Reason #3: Excessive Inventory

Excess inventory unnecessarily increases the Company’s interest expense

CFRA added GrafTech to its Biggest Concerns List on May 31, 2012 “due to the Company’s deliberate decision to continue to produce despite signs of declining demand.”1

34

Historic Quarterly Inventory Levels2

GrafTech was added to the CFRA Biggest Concerns List on May 31, 2012 “due to the Company’s deliberate decision to continue to produce despite signs of declining demand”1

Mr. Milikowsky repeatedly expressed concern about excess inventory while on the Board

Q4 2010 Inventory

1 CFRA Company Report, May 31, 2012 (emphasis added) 2 Source: SEC filings; Note: Save GrafTech treats inventory levels above the Q4 2010 level of $340 million as excess inventory

Reason #4: Failure to Consistently Run Seadrift at Capacity

There are only four high-quality petroleum needle coke producers in the world1

High-quality needle coke is a required ingredient for high-quality electrodes

Seadrift is the second largest needle coke producer in the global market

GrafTech is the world’s only electrode producer that is vertically integrated into needle coke

GrafTech’s failure to run Seadrift at full capacity was a large, missed opportunity

We believe, based on senior management’s comments on 2013 earnings calls, that Seadrift ran at approximately 85% of full capacity in both 2012 and 2013

GrafTech repeatedly blamed a Department of Justice ruling for its failure to run Seadrift at full capacity2 – we believe this was a disingenuous explanation

We believe that this under-utilization may have cost the Company $15 million per year in EBITDA3

35

“[L]et me say this: Seadrift’s quality, like I said, the normal premium quality and the super premium, is at a level it can sell anywhere. It’s in demand.” - Craig Shular, Chairman of GrafTech Q4 2012, February 26, 20134 (emphasis added)

1 Source: SEC filings 2 Source: Capital IQ Transcripts; See Q3 2013 Earnings Call (October 31, 2013), and Q4 2012 Earnings Call (February 26, 2013) 3 Source: Save GrafTech Analysis 4 Source: Capital IQ Transcripts

Reason #5: Broken Company Culture

36

Based on discussions with Company employees, customers, former executives, and former board members, we believe that GrafTech is suffering from a culture crisis, including:

Hierarchical structure leaves employees feeling detached from senior management

Low morale due to a “culture of fear” where dissenters are alienated or forced to exit

Poor strategic communication down to the “floor” levels

Discretionary compensation that fails to tie employee success and failure to that of the Company

Frustration with deterioration of core electrode business

Top-down command and control culture prevents employees from fully using their talents and insights

In just the past three years, two CFOs and two board members have departed the Company due to what we believe are differences with

former CEO and current Executive Chairman, Craig Shular

Reason #6: Inefficient Management Structure

We believe excessive layers of management hinder GrafTech’s performance by:

Sluggish response to market changes

Alienation of employees from leadership

Excessive costs

Poor communication through chain of command

Diminished initiative among most productive employees

Culture of size rather than efficiency

Save GrafTech will seek to install a flat organization with:

One layer of management between the CEO and plant management

A decentralized structure that equally distributes responsibility and enables employees to take greater ownership of their work

More direct connection between senior management and those closest to customers and production

Enhanced visibility of senior management and the Board to customers and market responsiveness

37

We believe GrafTech’s current organizational structure has failed to adopt modern best practices of lean manufacturing

Reason #7: Failed Oversight by a Flawed Board1

38

Independent Board Member Years on Board

GrafTech TSR vs. Peers Since

Joining Board2

Steel or Graphite Electrode Industry

Experience?

Mary Cranston 14 -44.2% No

Steven Shawley 4 -42.3% No

Ferrell McClean 12 -309.6% No

Randy Carson 5 -13.0% No

Harold Layman 10 -75.6% No

The Board does not have one independent member with experience in either the steel or graphite industry

1 Source: GrafTech website (www.graftech.com); Bloomberg; Save GrafTech analysis 2 Note: See Appendix for list of Selected Peer Group companies; weighted by market cap; TSR as of January 7, 2014 (the day prior to Save GrafTech’s 13D/A

was filed)

Reason #7: Failed Oversight by a Flawed Board (cont’d)

We see the legacy of the current Board as one of chronic underperformance

Despite the Company’s underperformance compared to its peers by more than 400% during this period, the Board permitted Craig Shular to remain as Chairman and CEO for 11 years

Outside of Mr. Shular, the current Board owns a total of 644,646 shares, mostly granted by the Company, representing a nominal 0.48% of outstanding shares

39

Source: Bloomberg Source: FactSet Note: * Indicates independent directors on the Board

Director % Shares

Craig Shular 0.83%

Joel Hawthorne 0.22%

Harold Layman* 0.07%

Ferrell McClean* 0.06%

Mary Cranston* 0.04%

Steven Shawley* 0.04%

Randolph Carson* 0.04%

Total 1.31%

GrafTech’s independent directors own a mere fraction of the shares of Save GrafTech

Reason #7: Failed Oversight by a Flawed Board (cont’d)

The Board has removed three members of the Board in the last five years:

Nathan Milikowsky: GrafTech’s largest investor, with tremendous experience in the graphite electrode and steel industries, who sought the removal of the CEO

Frank Riddick: Current CEO and Director of Shale-Inland Holdings, with more than 20 years of steel industry experience, who asked too many questions embarrassing to CEO

Michael Nahl: Current director of Lindsay Corp., former CFO of Albany International and member of the GrafTech Board for 15 years, who joined Mr. Milikowsky in seeking the removal of the CEO

40

We believe that the GrafTech Board has a history of “silencing” dissenters

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

Reason #8: Failed Oversight by a Flawed Board – Shular’s Share Sales

41

May 2008: 750,000 shares

were sold by Craig Shular

Dec. 2007: GrafTech announces share repurchase program stating: “[a] key purpose of this plan is to reduce the dilutive impact of stock options previously issued under the Company’s equity compensation program”

During the following year former-CEO Shular sells 780,960 shares while the Company repurchases 1,064,908 shares

Mr. Shular sells at approximate average share price of $23 during 2008

Since 2009, the average share price of GrafTech is $13

In May 2008, Craig Shular made a profit of $10,590,618 from selling

GrafTech Stock

GrafTech repurchases ~1 million shares at an average price of $20

While GrafTech repurchased shares, Craig Shular sold

Source: SEC filings; Bloomberg

The current Board of GrafTech has failed shareholders

IV. SAVE GRAFTECH’S RECOMMENDATIONS Redefining GrafTech’s Strategy

Save GrafTech’s Recommendations

44

We believe that if Save GrafTech‘s initiatives are fully and successfully undertaken, GrafTech stock will increase by as much as $7.00 per share from these initiatives alone

Redefine Commercial Strategy

Reduce Excess Inventory

Reduce SG&A

Ensure Seadrift is Consistently Run at Capacity




Improve Corporate Governance

Pro Forma Increase in Price Per Share1

Potential Market Share Improvement $ 60 million

Reduce SG&A $ 28 million

Expand Capacity at Seadrift $ 24 million

Estimated Increase in EBITDA $112 million

Estimated EV/EBITDA Multiple 8.0x



Potential Increase in Price Per Share $6.50/share

Potential Share Price Increase from Reduced Inventory $0.50/share2

1 Save GrafTech analysis 2 Note: See page 45 for detailed discussion

Redefine Commercial Strategy – Market Share Improvement

Save GrafTech is committed to improving sales by 30,000 metric tons by redefining commercial strategy and restoring customer relationships that have been lost under the current Board’s oversight Focus sales on large diameter electrodes, which

are most difficult to produce and leverage GrafTech’s raw material and technological advantages

This market share expansion has the potential to add an estimated $60 million to GrafTech’s EBITDA1

without taking into account increased margins that can be gained by utilizing needle coke produced by Seadrift

45

Save GrafTech is committed to restoring the Company’s market share

“[T]hey require the best electrodes, large diameter [fits] right into our sweet spot. So as you look forward as EAF production grows, generally it’s going to be those large furnaces coming up requiring large diameter electrodes.”

- Craig Shular, Chairman of GrafTech Q1 2011 Earnings Call, Apr 27, 20112 (emphasis added)

1 Note: Save GrafTech estimate 2 Source: Capital IQ Transcripts

Save GrafTech’s Commercial Strategy Recognize the commodity nature of

high-quality electrodes Negotiate prices with customers in a

manner to regain market share Deliver superior value for customers Once superior value is recognized, work

to expand share at each individual customer

Assumptions

Historic Quarterly Excess Inventory Levels2

Reduce Excess Inventory

Save GrafTech intends to reduce inventories to the $300 million level or lower by:

Repairing relationships with customers and abandoning the current “price leadership” strategy, leading to increased sales

Enforcing a “lean-manufacturing” process

We estimate that by reducing inventory by at least $190 million, GrafTech will add at least $7 million in after tax earnings

46

More effective strategies can reduce inventories levels and potentially add at least $7 million to GrafTech’s net earnings

1 Takes into account reduction of inventory from closure of Brazil and South Africa operations 2 Source: SEC filings; Note: Excess inventory calculated by subtracting each quarter’s reported inventory from GrafTech’s Q4 2010 inventory level of $340mm

Current Inventory (Q4 2013) $490 million

Target Inventory < $300 million1

Reduction in Inventory $190 million

Interest Expense Savings $ 10 million

Estimated Increase in Net Income $ 7 million

Estimated P/E Multiple 10.0x



Implied Increase in Price Per Share $0.50/share

$34

$62 $68

$104

$215 $214 $205

$173

$198 $200

$179

$150

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

Q1'11

Q2'11

Q3'11

Q4'11

Q1'12

Q2'12

Q3'12

Q4'12

Q1'13

Q2'13

Q3'13

Q4'13

$ in

mill

ions

Reduce SG&A

Save GrafTech intends to reduce SG&A by 25%, above and beyond the Company’s “Rationalization Plan”, by flattening the management structure between the CEO and the plant floor

We estimate that reducing SG&A by 25% will add at least $28 million to GrafTech’s EBITDA

And we believe we may discover additional waste that may be cut to further reduce SG&A as a percentage of revenue moving forward

47

Assumptions

Historic SG&A Levels1

Reducing SG&A has the potential to add $28 million to GrafTech’s EBITDA

1 Source: SEC filings; Capital IQ

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

SG&

A as a % of Revenue To

tal R

even

ue ($

in m

illio

ns)

Total Revenue

SG&A as a % of Revenue

FY2013 SG&A $111 million

x SG&A Reduction 25%

Increase in EBITDA $28 million

Ensure Seadrift Is Consistently Run at Capacity

Save GrafTech is committed to running Seadrift at full capacity

We will run Seadrift at capacity instead of using Phillips 66 and the Department of Justice as an excuse to explain why the facility is not running at full capacity1

We believe GrafTech has the ability to utilize all of Seadrift’s needle coke in its graphite electrode production

GrafTech’s management has pledged to run Seadrift at capacity in 2014 after failing to do so in 2012 and 2013

48

We believe that failure to run Seadrift at full capacity has reduced GrafTech’s EBITDA by $15 million in each of the last two years2

seadriftcoke.com

1 Source: Capital IQ Transcripts; Q3 2013 Earnings Call (October 31, 2013), and Q4 2012 Earnings Call (February 26, 2013) 2 Note: Save GrafTech estimate

Needle coke makes up approximately half the cost of

graphite electrodes, which means GrafTech can substantially

improve its margins


Save GrafTech is committed to expanding capacity at Seadrift

The Company not only can operate Seadrift at full capacity but can expand Seadrift’s capacity by installing key machinery Mr. Milikowsky initiated this expansion by

purchasing key machinery, which remains uninstalled by current management

GrafTech’s needle coke requirements will utilize Seadrift’s increased capacity

49

We believe expanding capacity at Seadrift will add $24 million to GrafTech’s EBITDA1

coking.com

1 Note: Save GrafTech estimate

Plant Manager Manager


We believe there is an opportunity to reorganize the Company into an efficient, industry leading competitor Our plan would implement an efficient organizational structure modeled after GrafTech’s primary customers,

minimill steel producers Accordingly, we plan to implement the following organizational principles: Single-minded focus on premier product quality Flat organizational structure emphasizing decentralized authority and initiative Concentration on efficiency and productivity Transparent, effective communication and leadership between senior management and those closest to

customers and production Focus on customer relationships

Our structure distributes responsibility and aligns the workforce’s interests to achieve continuous operating improvement

50

Save GrafTech’s Proposed Structure

Save GrafTech’s plan is modeled after the proven organizational structure of GrafTech’s main customers, minimill steel producers

CEO


In addition to Save GrafTech’s other recommendations, the Company should evaluate all actionable opportunities available for the Engineered Solutions business To be clear, this is not to imply that we have any current

intentions of selling the ES business – rather we believe that with access to better information, we will be able to make an informed decision of how the ES business can best maximize value for shareholders

We question whether there are synergies realized between the ES and Industrial Materials businesses: The two businesses have separate management teams, which

limits SG&A cost savings The R&D needs of the two businesses are unrelated, which

limits G&A cost savings The end markets for the two divisions are too different for there

to be sales expense savings or revenue synergies

51

We believe it would be appropriate to take a fresh look at the Engineered Solutions business

Industrial Materials

Graphite Electrodes Needle Coke

Engineered Solutions

ES Quarterly LTM Revenue1

As GrafTech’s ES revenue has increased, margins have dramatically decreased

1 Source: SEC filings; Capital IQ; Note: FY2013

22% of Revenue1 78% of Revenue1

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

Q3'08

Q4'08

Q1'09

Q2'09

Q3'09

Q4'09

Q1'10

Q2'10

Q3'10

Q4'10

Q1'11

Q2'11

Q3'11

Q4'11

Q1'12

Q2'12

Q3'12

Q4'12

Q1'13

Q2'13

Q3'13

Q4'13

Operating M

argin

ES L

TM R

even

ue ($

in m

illio

ns)

LTM Operating Margin

Improve Corporate Governance

We believe GrafTech requires governance improvements to ensure shareholders can hold the Board accountable

We proposed the use of a universal proxy ballot for this year’s annual meeting to allow shareholders to choose freely between our nominees and the existing board

The Company failed to see the need to fully enfranchise shareholders and rejected our proposal

If successful, Save GrafTech will constitute a minority of directors, but will advocate for the following governance practices:

Separation of Chairman and CEO positions

Install shareholders’ ability to act by written consent

Enact a majority voting policy whereby directors receiving less than a majority of votes cast at the annual meeting in an uncontested election are required to tender their resignation

Ensure that the Company performs comprehensive searches for vacancies in senior management positions

52

Save GrafTech is committed to improving the Company’s corporate governance

V. SAVE GRAFTECH’S NOMINEES

Save GrafTech’s nominees have the industry experience and skills necessary to fix

GrafTech’s problems and create meaningful shareholder value

Karen Finerman – Redefining Corporate Communication

55

Co-Founder and CEO of Metropolitan Capital Advisors (1992 – present)

Deep-value investment management firm with extensive experience investing in industrials sector

Works constructively with portfolio companies to improve corporate governance

Former Lead Research Analyst at Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation

Permanent panelist on CNBC’s ‘Fast Money’

Relevant Experience

“Metropolitan looks for companies that have excellent corporate governance. In addition, we look to help companies have candid dialogue with shareholders and Wall Street analysts. I would seek to create clear, definable, consistent metrics for shareholders to more easily determine GrafTech's progress.”

David Jardini – Instilling Operational Excellence

56

Current Chairman of Black Diamond Investments, a family investment partnership focused on manufacturing and real estate industries

Former Co-Founder and President of C/G Electrodes (2003 – 2010), acquired by GrafTech in 2010

President of American Gas Lamp Works LLC, a manufacturing business since 2012 and as Managing Member of JCG Development since 2010

Director of Robroy Industries, Inc., an electrical and oil field manufacturer since 2011

Former Vice President, Metals Section, Mellon Bank N.A. Corporate Banking Department (1997 – 1998)

Over 15 years of industry experience

Relevant Experience

“The steel industry has given GrafTech a blueprint for success. The Company must emulate the efficiencies of the minimills and install a modern manufacturing mindset. As a member of GrafTech’s Board, I would ensure that the entire Company is aware of our operational metrics and are incentivized to improve on them.”

Nathan Milikowsky – Reestablishing Shareholder Accountability

57

Former Director of GrafTech from 2010 to 2013 Former President of Seadrift Coke (2005 – 2010), acquired by GrafTech

in 2010 Former co-Founder, CEO (2003 – 2006) and Chairman of C/G Electrodes

(2003 – 2010), acquired by GrafTech in 2010 Reopened the closed St. Mary’s plant and restarted production of UHP

graphite electrodes Involved in steel trading starting in 1969 In 1979, became CEO/Chairman/owner of three manufacturing

businesses which were sold in 1991 through 1995

Relevant Experience

“I have a singular focus for GrafTech: create sustainable shareholder value. As one of the Company’s largest shareholders, my incentives are directly aligned with my fellow-investors and I will seek to ensure that this alignment flows throughout the entire organization.”

Comparison of Nominees

58

Name1

(TSR vs. Peers During Board Tenure)2

Experience

Mary Cranston -44.2%

Senior partner at a law firm Zero experience in the graphite

electrode or steel industry beyond directorship at GrafTech

History of leading smear campaigns for own agenda3

Ferrell McClean -309.1%

Former Managing Director at JP Morgan Zero experience in the graphite


Steven Shawley -42.3

CFO at Ingersoll Rand Zero experience in the graphite


Name Experience Karen Finerman CEO of Metropolitan Capital Advisors

Over 20 years of extensive investment experience Co-founded a successful, New York-

based hedge fund History of successful engagement with

portfolio companies, including numerous industrial and manufacturing firms

David Jardini Former Co-Founder and President of C/G Electrodes Over 15 years experience in the steel

and graphite electrode business Proven ability to lead and grow a

graphite electrode business

Nathan Milikowsky Over 40 years experience in the steel business and over 10 years in the graphite electrode business Proven ability to grow a graphite

electrode business Former Director of GrafTech

The three Board members targeted by Save GrafTech have ZERO operating experience in the steel or graphite electrode industry

1 Excludes newly appointed CEO, Joel Hawthorne, retiring directors Craig Shular and Harold Layman, and Randy Carson 2 Source: Bloomberg; Note: TSR as of January 7, 2014 (the day prior to Save GrafTech’s 13D/A filing) 3 Source: Gordon Smith, The Conglomerate, January 28, 2006 (http://www.theconglomerate.org/2006/01/mary_cranston_r.html)

VI. ADDRESSING GRAFTECH’S MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN Response to false accusations and misrepresentations

Instead of engaging in a substantive discussion about the performance and

strategy of the business, the current Board is wasting shareholder funds to make

unsubstantiated personal attacks against Mr. Milikowsky and members of his family

Responding to GrafTech’s Misinformation Campaign

61

Unfounded Allegation Facts Nathan Milikowsky did not comply with his

duties of loyalty and candor and GrafTech’s code of conduct

These allegations are simply false It is not a violation of the duty of loyalty to try to replace the CEO and, indeed it

reflects loyalty to shareholders Mr. Milikowsky was perhaps excessively candid about the need to replace the

CEO

There was evidence that Mr. Milikowsky was the source of the leaked material non-public information

There is no real evidence other than baseless allegations that Mr. Milikowsky leaked the information

In certain instances, the information claimed to have been leaked arguably was not material and was likely not even non-public

Mr. Milikowsky did not cooperate fully with the internal investigation

GrafTech cites three nitpicks as its basis for Mr. Milikowsky being uncooperative ● First, Mr. Milikowsky did not sign the litigation hold, but nonetheless

maintained all relevant documents ● Second, Mr. Milikowsky produced all documents that were relevant and

material in response to the requests of the special committee ● Third, Mr. Milikowsky did make himself available for an interview prior to

being removed from the Board

Would Mr. Milikowsky be running a public campaign if he had violated his fiduciary duties, as asserted by the current Board?


62

Unfounded Allegation Facts Nathan Milikowsky violated his fiduciary

duties and contractual obligations by “sharing information” with his brother, Daniel Milikowsky

The current Board has produced no real evidence of this, only its suspicions

Nathan Milikowsky was aware of “multiple communications” between Daniel Milikowsky and a Hedge Fund that expressed similar criticisms of GrafTech’s management team and did not report those communications to the Board

Nathan Milikowsky informed the Board that the Hedge Fund had contacted his brother to request a meeting with Nathan, but that Nathan had declined

Mr. Milikowsky has never met with, or had discussions with the Hedge Fund

Nathan Milikowsky was aware that another Milikowsky family member who worked at a different hedge fund was communicating with the Hedge Fund

There is no basis for this statement whatsoever The current Board has produced no real evidence for this allegation

The material non-public information was known only to senior management and directors

The implication that Mr. Milikowsky shared non-public information is completely without merit

Yet again, the current Board has presented no real evidence to support this allegation

Why would Mr. Milikowsky provide information to a hedge fund he had never heard of and never met with?


63

Unfounded Allegation Facts Nathan Milikowsky bribed a fellow director

with a free option opportunity in exchange for support in the Boardroom

Introducing a fellow director to a $17,000 investment in a small medical device start-up is not a bribe and the claim that such investment opportunity is a conflict of interest is absurd

The investment was made at the same valuation as all other investors and has not generated any return to date

Nathan Milikowsky deliberately misrepresented the voting intentions of one director in order to deceive another director into supporting his agenda

This statement is false Mr. Milikowsky accurately represented the voting intentions of the other

directors, as they were represented to him

Nathan Milikowsky never denied that Daniel and Nathan Milikowsky were involved with the Hedge Fund

Mr. Milikowsky was never accused of being involved with the Hedge Fund and therefore never had an opportunity to deny it

The Nominating Committee presented its conclusions and many key facts in its report to the Board on its recommendations regarding director nominations for the 2013 annual meeting

No key facts were presented to the Board Ms. Cranston presented a list of statements, which were either false or

irrelevant, and conclusions without substantiation

GrafTech has refused to provide the “findings” of the special committee to Mr. Milikowsky or shareholders

“I have nothing to hide from anyone – GrafTech, lawyers, regulators, or shareholders. The Company has already engaged in an investigation, yet has presented no evidence to substantiate their public statements about me.”

- Nathan Milikowsky, Save GrafTech Nominee

VII. APPENDIX Peer Group Selection, Overview of Industry and GrafTech, and Case Studies

Peer Group Selection

The selection of GrafTech’s peers was based on their graphite electrode production capacity and whether graphite electrodes is their core business

66

Ticker: TSE:5301 Headquartered in Japan Founded in 1918 100,000 metric ton production capacity $689 million market cap

Ticker: DB:SGL Headquartered in Germany Founded in 1872 230,000 metric ton production capacity $2,734 million market cap

Ticker: BSE:509631 Headquartered in India Founded in 1972 80,000 metric ton production capacity $134 million market cap

Ticker: BSE:509488 Headquartered in India Founded in 1962 100,000 metric ton production capacity $256 million market cap

Source: Capital IQ

Selected Minimill Index Composition

The following companies were selected as the Minimill Index based on the fact that a substantial portion of their revenue is derived from EAF steel production

67

Ticker: BOVESPA:GGBR4

Headquartered in Porto Alegre, Brazil

Founded in 1901

$10,161 million market cap

Ticker: CMC

Headquartered in Irving, Texas

Founded in 1915


Ticker: STLD

Headquartered in Fort Wayne, Indiana

Founded in 1993


Ticker: NUE

Headquartered in Charlotte, NC

Founded in 1940


Source: Capital IQ

Overview of GrafTech’s Business Segments

Graphite Electrodes

GrafTech’s core business

Graphite electrodes are used principally to conduct electricity in electric arc steelmaking furnaces

Electric arc furnace (EAF) operations consume one electrode, on average, every eight to ten hours1

Needle Coke

High-quality petroleum needle coke, a primary ingredient in high-quality graphite electrodes, is manufactured by only four producers world-wide

With the acquisition of Seadrift, GrafTech became the only vertically integrated graphite electrode producer - a unique and highly advantaged strategic position

Advanced Electronics Technology Applications include thermal management and

sealing solutions used in consumer electronics, automotive sealing and the petrochemical and alternative energy industries

Advanced Graphite Materials Produces extruded, molded and isomolded graphite

blocks and machined graphite parts used in many applications including metallurgy, high-temperature industrial, and alternative energy applications

Advanced Composite Materials Manufactures advanced composites used in

automotive, petrochemical, and aerospace sectors Advanced Materials Manufactures primarily synthetic graphite powders,

natural flake graphite powders, coke powders, and various other carbon/graphite powder derivatives

68

Industrial Materials Engineered Solutions

2013 Revenue by Segment1

Industrial Materials 78%

ES 22%

1 Source: SEC filings

GrafTech is still predominantly a graphite electrode company

Overview of Global Graphite Electrode Market

High barriers to entry into graphite electrode production

Difficult to produce

Requires extensive product and process knowledge

High initial capital investment

No known substitute for graphite electrodes in the EAF process

Graphite electrode prices are typically negotiated at the end of each calendar year for delivery throughout the next calendar year

There has been a steady increase in demand for graphite electrodes worldwide for decades

69

Company 2012 Estimated Capacity 2012 Estimated % of

Global Production Capacity

GrafTech (USA) 255,000 mt 13.5%

SGL Carbon (Germany) 230,000 mt 12.2%

Showa Denko (Japan) 127,000 mt 6.7%

Tokai Carbon (Japan) 100,000 mt 5.3%

GIL (India) 100,000 mt 5.3%

HEG (India) 80,000 mt 4.2%

Chinese Producers2 830,000 mt 43.9%

Other 166,000 mt 8.8%

Worldwide Total 1,890,000 mt 100%

Global Production Capacity1

1 Source: GrafTech Investor Presentation (November 2013) 2 Comprising 25 different producers

Overview of EAF Steelmaking: Process

The EAF operating cycle is called the “tap-to-tap cycle” and is made up of the following operations: Furnace Charging: Preparation of scrap metal

and placement of scrap metal into the furnace Melting: Electricity is conducted through the

graphite electrodes creating an arc which melts the scrap metal and consumes the graphite electrodes

Refining: Oxygen is introduced into the EAF to remove unwanted chemical elements from the steel, creating slag which floats to the surface of the molten steel

De-Slagging: The EAF is tilted backwards and slag is poured out of the furnace through the slag door

Tapping: The tap-hole is opened, the furnace is tilted and the steel pours into a ladle

Furnace Turnaround: The period following completion of tapping until the furnace is re-charged

Graphite electrodes account for only 2% of EAF production costs1

EAF operations consume one electrode, on average, every eight to ten hours1

70

Section View Through EAF

~1 MT of Needle Coke

Makes ~1 MT of Graphite

Electrodes Makes ~500 MT

of Steel

Source: Save GrafTech analysis

Graphite Electrodes

Source: steeluniversity.org

1 Source: GrafTech Investor Presentation (November 2013)

Overview of EAF Steelmaking: History

Towards the end of the 19th century, the US integrated steel industry rose to become one of the leading industries in the world Integrated mills were the dominant producers of steel at mid-

century and regularly revolutionized their technology The dominance of integrated steel companies began to falter by

the 1970’s when companies such as Bethlehem Steel, LTV, and Wheeling-Pittsburgh were unable to adapt to changes in the marketplace They gradually ossified, became bloated and focused on

pricing Around the same time, minimills began to increase market share

at the expense of the integrated steel giants Minimills, such as Nucor, CMC, and Steel Dynamics, are

generally considered more efficient and technologically advanced than integrated mills, with lower ratios of fixed costs to variable costs and lower headcount than integrated mills

Their modern technology, lower labor cost/ton, entrepreneurial management, and streamlined product lines elevated them to success in the steel industry

As a result of obsolete organizational structures, uncompetitive costs and overall inability to effectively compete with minimills, the integrated steel companies gradually surrendered market share, accumulated debt, and most went bankrupt

71

GrafTech must adopt the lean manufacturing model of its customers, the minimills, or risk having the same fate of the integrated steel companies

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012

BOF EAF % of BOF % of EAF

United States Steel Production, by Process1

1 Source: World Steel Association; Note: Blast Oxygen Furnace (BOF)

staexecutive.com nps-tech.com

Case Study: Bethlehem Steel

Founded in 1904, Bethlehem Steel rose to become the second largest steel producer in the United States (behind US Steel)

Bethlehem's long decline was characterized by several management missteps, including:

Failing to adapt their business model to compete with the minimills

Excessive layers of management

Sluggish response to market changes

Prolonged loss of market share

Insular, ivory-tower management culture

Excessive spending on “silver bullet” solutions

Bethlehem filed for bankruptcy on October 15, 2001

72

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

Price Chart1

1 Source: Capital IQ

“The truth is that Bethlehem did itself in. It was not fit enough to deal with the new competition nor perceptive enough to sense its need for radical treatment.”

- Carol Loomis, Fortune Magazine April 5, 2004

Case Study: Nucor Corporation

Nucor began making steel in the 1960’s Today Nucor is the largest producer of steel in the United

States Nucor epitomized the modern “minimill business” model: Flat, decentralized organizational structure Empowered, incentivized employees Lean, agile operations Low overhead and inventory costs Highly transparent and cooperative culture

While large, integrated steel companies struggled for most of the last two decades, Nucor has unmatched profitability and its stakeholders have reaped the benefits

Minimill steel producers are GrafTech’s primary customers and are the business model the Company needs to replicate immediately

73 1 Source: Capital IQ

“We’re not overseeing the demise of the steel industry. We’re seeing its transformation into a high-tech business.”

- F. Kenneth Iverson, Former CEO of Nucor Inc., April 1, 1984

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

Contrary to the obsolete business approach taken by Bethlehem, Nucor and the other minimill steel producers created a new business model in the steel industry

Price Chart1

Contact Information

74

Media: Sard Verbinnen & Co.

George Sard/Jim Barron/Renee Soto (212) 687-8080

[email protected]

Shareholders: D.F. King & Co. Inc.

Jordan Kovler/Edward McCarthy/Richard Grubaugh (212) 269-5550

[email protected]

Date post:	20-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ryan-martin
View:	96 times
Download:	2 times

Save GrafTech Shareholder Presentation (April 16, 2014)

Documents